5 Filters

It Really Doesn't Matter

A number of very relevant points, thanks Evvy for clarifying MC2, I figured it must be MCC but you can guess where the first page of search results all pointed to :wink:

An abstract disaster in 2050? I don’t think we have as long to wait as that. CDC, WHO, WEF (and a whole bunch of others I’d vouchsafe) are steadily telling us all about Disease X that will be ten times as infectious as Corvid. This seems to be a placeholder rather than some puzzling virus they haven’t quite nailed down yet (a construct in other words). But whatever it is and whenever it comes along the only sensible response will be vaccination, on that they seem unanimous.

Who’d’ve thought?

Or did I miss the announcement of the discovery of the official real Disease X last Thursday?

1 Like


Because the same people who funded the big tobacco “science” against lung cancer are today funding people like Rancourt (and maybe even Rancourt) to do the same for climate change. This is well documented.

When a fully paid up professor of physics says something like “more people breathing out creates more CO2 in the atmosphere” he is either a numpty, or deliberately spreading disinformation. Rancourt is not a numpty, so I believe it’s option 2. Hence my frustration - I don’t trust him.

eh? What about the funding behind the “Great Barrington Declaration”? Koch brothers and others, if I remember correctly. The “let it rip” faction of the covid debate. There are rich and powerful factions on both sides of this debate as is true about climate.

He has put in the effort on the excess deaths biz, and I don’t have much to say on that subject, except that I’m still confused as to whether there really is a large excess death signal in the UK or if it is a registration problem…

Hmmm… There is an awful lot of data showing a warming world. Ice caps melting, sea temps rising, bird migratory patterns changing, ground measurements, sea measurements, space measurements, tree-rings, ice cores, extreme weather events, fossil carbon in the atmosphere and a ton of other things. It’s not a fact if you don’t go and look for the data, but it is a fact to just about everyone who is studying, measuring, recording and analysing the data. Even the new wave of climate sceptics don’t bother to argue that the climate is not changing. It is.

As I pointed out before, the privately funded, un-repeatable and secret data surrounding covid vaccine “science” is not comparable to publicly funded, open access, multi-decade, repeatable climate science. I understand your anger and frustration at how the mRNA studies have created a (false) dominant narrative, but don’t let your anger from one area spill into a totally different area. Each deserves to be considered on its merits.

Jem Bendell deals directly with this sort of comparison. It’s worth taking a look at what he has to say. I’ve dropped links on the board already - search Bendell. Any real solution to the upcoming climate problems has to start by rejecting whatever the elites are trying to push on us. They do not have our interests at heart. As Brett Weinsten said recently - “we are in the same storm, but we are not in the same boat”. That’s not the same as rejecting the foundational studies on climate change though.

100% yes he has. That’s basically the main thing he’s writing about these days. He calls it eco-libertarianism. You can get a taste of it here

Cheers bwana

1 Like

Hi PP (in a previous life :slightly_smiling_face: )

Oh I see what you mean - you’re not saying Rancourt is a numpty, but that he was making statement(s) in bad faith.
I thought maybe you didn’t mean it the way I was suggesting. If you did then as it’s a clear attempt to discredit someone, what about providing the quote in context, rather than “something like” it, as I can’t tell from that what he even meant.
If you think he’s a crook you can’t reasonably expected to ‘represent’ him…

Bear in mind I really am a numpty. How does the alleged Rancourt thing go - people eat plants and thereby breathe out more CO2 than they breathe in.
What is the comparison you think is being made (more people versus less people?), and what is the rebuttal? Thanks

Me: “there’s no rich anti-covid fraternity”

Sorry, I said it wrongly - I didn’t just mean people who are rich with a viewpoint but people who stand to make billions or even collectively trillions - expressly from the thing they are punting.
Loads of people agree with the thinking behind the GBD. A coupla rich brothers doesn’t really compare… :slight_smile: and we haven’t established what the vested interest is, though I imagine it was to do with lost economic activity.
Fact is, the other side dozens of governments and very many thousands of professionals told lies or put up with crap to keep their jobs and careers. GBD and the dissenters were not doing that.
I don’t know if I should accept your public climate change data vs private covid/vaccine data comparison. Private money and influence ran all the western governments! It seems to fund the science in medicine. There’s so much influence the distinction between public and private money is blurred. Don’t know about other sciences,

I didn’t want to get into a loggerheads type discussion and I don’t really want to do adhom.
I don’t believe it’s as simple as you say though; apart from anything else you are only trying to discredit opponents, not refute or address their scientific arguments.
Yes I take your point that I should check it all out.
But it’s unreasonable to ignore what’s been happening. And it’s getting even worse than one thing after another, so I’m arguing from where I am. Sorry about that!

I’ll try check out Jem Bendell again; not easy to get to the concrete there, I think. Who shall be hung first for covid?
I don’t think it should be necessary to trash scientists who publish in opposition to the narrative though.


1 Like

Hi folks before anyone accepts the strange concept that the science is settled it might be useful to read the recent 3 parter from Iain Davis :

links to parts 1 and 2 are given in part 3 above.
We have discussed most of this but it is useful to have most of the issues on what is in effect censorship of all views disputing the official narrative in one place. The Settled Science issue was central to covid and jabs and is central to AGW and related issues. The unitary propaganda button has been pressed for Ukraine and Russia and now Gaza and Yemen - it’s always the same - you’re either with us or against us as young Bush spouted - and nothing has changed.




I’ll go ad dig it up on his website at some point when I have time. Yes, he was making the point that increasing human population breathing would automatically increase CO2 in the environment and so there’s almost no point in trying to curb it - unless you curb the population I suppose.

You’ve almost hit the counter argument on the head straight away. People eat plants. That’s where the carbon comes from that they then breathe out. Where did those plants get that carbon from? The atmosphere. So plants suck in carbon from the atmosphere, we eat the plants and breathe out the carbon back to the atmosphere. It’s a closed loop. We don’t create more carbon, we eat it and release it. To be taken in by plants again.

Anyway, that was just one thing. There were a goodly number of dodgy statements from him on climate change.

Of course it shouldn’t. I totally agree. My patience wears thin, though, when these scientists continue to post long after they have been shown to be wrong on the main points that they are trying to push. McIntyre falls into this category. Maybe Zhakarova too (how does a professor of astronomy get basic orbital dynamics wrong and then refuse to correct that position?).

I’d be a lot more convinced by these folks if they accepted when they were wrong and revised their arguments… Most climate sceptic scientists will not do that though, and will simply argue until they are blue in the face that they are right, regardless of the evidence.

1 Like

Hi again Aly

“You’ve almost hit the counter argument on the head straight away. People eat plants. That’s where the carbon comes from that they then breathe out. Where did those plants get that carbon from? The atmosphere. So plants suck in carbon from the atmosphere, we eat the plants and breathe out the carbon back to the atmosphere. It’s a closed loop. We don’t create more carbon, we eat it and release it. To be taken in by plants again.”

So…it’s a closed loop, because the people are completing it by releasing the CO2.
Without that step it would be an open loop - where CO2 is taken in by the plants from the air, one that is very favourable to the environment.

What happens to the plant matter if it is not eaten by humans? Some of it likely still gets released - by rotting, or being eaten by other ruminants. Completing the loop.
But much of it will be taken in by the soil, helping grow more plants and trees. To this extent the loop is not closed surely? Only some of the CO2 is in it, AFAICS.

The people clearly do have an effect - they release CO2 from plants into the air, without which some of that Co2 would not be released.

I don’t know what Rancourt specifically said, but this loop idea seems a common rebuttal.
TBH it looks a bit blase to me.

I’ll leave with Rancourt until you find the smoking gun proving he is a fraud or a numpty.

But let’s just explore this question a bit more, as I don’t see that it is as simple as you say…

While looking unsuccessfully for Rancourt’s quote I came across this site, where they have a forum devoted to the specific question we are discussing, viz:

" Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?"
Link: Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

There is a lot of discussion, and they are mostly scientists, whatever that means, but the ethos of the site is that the answer to this question is “No”.

The idea of the site seems to be that the scientists will ‘Scienceplain’ the error of their ways to foolish climate deniers.
It doesn’t work like that in practice, partly because the posters inevitably complicate the question.
The thread is tightly moderated, has 160 posts and has run for 10 years!

But it struck me that the question itself is poorly specified.

  1. Breathing being fundamental to life means it is a proxy representing someone’s entire life history.
    It is therefore odd to have a ‘closed loop’ start at that point, when everything else about that person relevant to their CO2 flow that is implicated in the fact of them being alive, isn’t included.

  2. The closed loop seems faulty to me. It’s only partially closed - you start with CO2 in the air, being absorbed by plants, some of which is the released via humans, and some which is not.
    And that which is not, is buried (see what I did there :slight_smile: ) and moreover, people raising it are patronized with the loop story - that’s what happens on that very serious scientific site! And possibly to Dr Rancourt as well.
    I could be wrong about this but there’s more than an air of suppression about it. Not least because when it was queried on the site, there wasn’t a very scientific response, rather a dogmatic one.

  3. The question ignores the quantitative aspect of this. Quite likely the human CO2 (even the breathing bit) contribution is dwarfed by the contribution made by burning fossil fuels - which they are quick to point out are not part of the same ‘carbon cycle’ under discussion, but rather is introducing fresh carbon.
    However it may not be negligible, and will increase in relative terms as fossil fuels diminish. And it seems the question may be used as a proxy for minimising the effect of human populations assuming the burning of fossil fuels were to end.

For example, people who are ‘breathing harmlessly’ are also requiring the destruction of CO2-reducing habitat in order to grow the food that they are later breathing out as CO2. So it’s not just the breathing.

So it seems perfectly legit and scientific for (alleged) deniers to point out when this is issue not included, yet they are accused of being unscientific. (Shades of covid here :thinking:).

It strikes me that some of the official science being promoted is not the truth-oriented variety but rather a single dumbed-down message being tailored to the public gallery.
It’s almost as if the imperative might not be to reduce CO2 itself, but to advance the “no fossil fuels” idea as a political goal.


You’re thinking about factor 500. I’m thinking about factor 5 million.

“The era of the peace dividend is over” Michael Green

Green spoke on how Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea will be attacking in the next few years. His predecessor spoke of war with China by 2030. Although widely mocked in social media, it’s a clear indication of what coming.

And what is coming? War obviously. But how? We had very little really (western forces are expeditionary, not designed for lengthy peer fighting) and have wasted lots on the charade that is Ukraine.

Mr. Green “Hi Mr.Ping? Yeah, I’d like to buy 8 billion 5.56 NATO rounds please”
Mr Ping inaudible speech
Mr.Green “Never you mind what for!”

They are not gonna restock in a decade, never mind a few years. So what is left to play with? Ballistic missiles. And what’s going to go on the end of those ballistic missiles?

So no, I’m not particularly concerned with much else if I’m honest. Have the burden of mother to distract me too.

1 Like

Hi @LocalYokel , thanks for pointing us to Dr. Soon - I can’t get telegram my phone is old and has no space for it, but his site has the interview with Tucker Carlson :

I loved his CO2 and “science” analysis - also listening to his wide ranging thoughts his examination of the impact of other planets in the solar system on us made me realise that there is probably a very real connection between who we are as individuals plus who we become and the effect of unique planetary configurations at certain key points in our lives - birth marriage and death being obvious ones. Astrology is probably solidly based in science!


1 Like


I’ve not had much time this week to look up Rancourt on breathing. I’ll poke around when I have a moment.

I think your thoughts are interesting, but in the end this isn’t a theoretical exercise in logic. There are hundreds of careful scientific studies in this area. Take a look at the carbon cycle.

Atmospheric carbon cycles between the atmosphere, the oceans and the earth. Living things (things other than humans) eat breathe and die. They take in carbon and release it back. Humans do that too.

Humans don’t produce carbon in their bodies and increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by breathing. Every atom of carbon in our bodies came out of the atmosphere in the very recent past and gets released back. It’s a dynamic equilibrium that had been this way for geological time.

If humans didn’t breathe out we’d die pretty quickly but then be replaced by other animals that do breathe out. There are various carbon reservoirs in the carbon cycle and carbon is continuously exchanged between them.

Carbon that is an active part of the carbon cycle doesn’t pool in the atmosphere over hundreds or thousands of years thereby causing the planet to warm.

Again. There are clear studies by multiple teams over a long period of time. Take a look at the studies - they explain all this much better than I can. I’m likely to get the details wrong.


1 Like


War is coming. I’m sure it will be bad.

What happens when massive crop failures start occurring regularly, mass die-offs due to hear stroke start to happen, huge swathes of the planet become unliveable and people stay to migrate in numbers that are 10-100 times greater than what we see today?

The wars you’re concerned about are the low foothills of what climate change will cause.

Ignore it if you like, but that won’t make it go away…

I understand that you’ve got your hands full with family issues. I totally get that. I’m in a similar boat here, hence my absence these last few days.

In the end no one can focus their attention on everything. There’s to much insanity going on to be on top of it all.

But in the same way that trying to deny the danger we’re in today from neocon nut jobs trying to start world war 3 won’t stop those nut jobs, trying to deny that climate change will ultimately be the biggest threat to our species will not save us from that threat.

The difference is that dropping some neo con nut jobs involves thrusting them out of office somehow. Trying to stop catastrophic construction change will take years or decades of work from people across the globe and a complete change in how we’ve organised our civilization.

By the way, Soon’s work had been examined by many people and thrown in the bin a long while ago. He’s not a serious person to bet the future of your kids on

1 Like

Where to start?

Will we see conventional war? I don’t think we will. NATO is fielding 90k troops on exercise soon. Sure, they’re capable and not to be underestimated but Russia has assembled 1 million troops so far and can probably find many more. China, when you include reserves etc can field up to 550 million.

If it goes nuclear (and it’s still a fairly big if) then forget everything. You would not believe how difficult it is to take a bite of a biscuit, let alone take a crap in a nuclear contaminated environment. Nuke map can show you the mess than can be made from just one tactical bomb.

Crop failure? I’m seeing fallow fields. I get around, and I prefer cross country to motorways. There’s way too many fields sat doing nothing.

Migrants would slow if we didn’t blow the shit out of their world and instead helped build it up. It would lessen more if the west wasn’t promoted as the promised land.

The closest we’ll agree on this is that we need to change our habits with consumerism and buying things that go to the tip.

As for mother. It won’t last forever. It is what it is.

1 Like


Yes I get the carbon came out of the atmosphere and likely goes back there. But that’s not the cycle under discussion.
That cycle starts with a plant that is either eaten by a human or it isn’t
If it is eaten by a human the CO2 released goes back into the air (unless you breathe it through a straw on to your wet rhododendrons :slight_smile: ) and so yes, that’s a cycle.

But if it isn’t eaten by a human, the carbon (in the plant) might be eaten by another animal, it might rot and if so it might be subsumed back into the ground, maybe contributing to a tree or more plants.
So I think all of the carbon isn’t part of the cycle you refer to. Others have made this point.
The humans converting stored carbon to CO2 and releasing it is not simply a cycle; it’s partly a break in that cycle.

In the site/forum I mentioned the moderator thought and stated that referring to the natural carbon cycle (or something similar) was simply the end of the matter, apart from threatening one of the questioners with a ban and saying it was widely accepted.

It seems like they don’t act like they are trying to change minds!

On Rancourt’s statement, breathing might have been a proxy for living - in which case you have to consider the effect of the person’s life and their I/O (ugh!) …

It would be better if the scientists didn’t claim it was simple and settled without putting anything on show.
Like the so-called anti-vaxxers, it is always claimed you just can’t talk to them. But many are all ears, and it is the official narrative that has been playing hard-to-engage for decades. The real problem is that the sceptics that want to engage don’t accept bullshit.

I still don’t have a particular view on MMCC but it seems hard to get real engagement. And when I’ve seen that happen before, it’s been to cover up the bad official science narrative - even though everything you usually say about MMCC (simple, settled, high quality, opponents are quacks, stuff for the bin etc) applies to that discourse.

Btw did you read the Iain Davis piece? I only read the first one so far. He makes very interesting points; can’t evaluate without a lot more effort though.



I think it still is part of the same carbon cycle. CO2 gets released from soil after all. It’s a question of how carbon moves across the various carbon reservoirs. This is a fairly stable dynamic equilibrium with changes measured over 100s if thousands of years. Human respiration (together with all other animals) just finds it’s place in the equilibrium.

No. It’s an integral part of a very long cycle. It’s not a break.

Some minds are not open to changing. Data is dismissed and prior beliefs rule the day. I’ve seen it on this site. And many others. People get stuck in delusion and that’s that.

The data is clear and freely available. You have more than enough technical ability to go and read the studies in climate science… Not doing that is a choice.

All the data is available. It’s been on show for 100 years. Scientists don’t tend to claim it’s simple. But more and more these days it is settled.

I see the problem as sceptics who are beholden to ideology and refuse to actually do the science or engage with the data.

Where are the scientific studies that show the earth is not warming? Where are the studies that show arctic ice is not decreasing. All, and I mean all, the data is pointing one way. The sceptics are pointing another. Usually because when you get down to it they are being paid to shill by groups like the Heartland Institute (e.g. WUWT)

No studies. No evidence. Just as hom and bluster. That’s 95% of climate sceptics.

I started reading the linked piece that CJ posted. Got about half way down without seeing a single piece of evidence showing that the basics of the science is wrong. Will (eventually) read the rest and see what I think

How does that change the fact that major crop failures in multiple bread-baskets around the world are predicted in the next 5-10 years?

Currently the fields around me are flooded out, meaning no winter wheat planting. This will get worse as flood events increase in likelihood and severity.

That was true in the world we used to have. That’s not true in the world that is to come. Huge swathes of land will become uninhabitable because of climate change. People will be forced to leave.

How do we help build up those places? Those people will just leave. Vast waves of migration will start to occur in the near future.

Migration will not slow down - it’s going to explode. We can’t even deal with the migration we have today - look at the hysterical conversation around migration in the UK or in the Netherlands or Germany. How will we cope when there are 10-100x the number of migrants we have at the moment?

I’m shoulder to shoulder with you on this.


1 Like


In the 10 year discussion I observed the mod person insisted the carbon in fossil fuels was a separate cycle. He said it was much worse to release that; obviously true.
You’re viewing the accounting differently. You can do, as only one cycle.

But either way, the point remains that any carbon in plants consumed and released by humans as CO2 might not have been released but for the human. Fixing on one ‘cycle’ as the reference or the other makes no difference to that.

“Some minds are not open to changing.”

True, but works both ways. I find it a useful indicator to look how the discussions go when there is willingness on one side; and if one side is using evasive or dismissive tactics.

“The data is clear and freely available. You have more than enough technical ability to go and read the studies in climate science… Not doing that is a choice.”

And all for the lack of a link…I knew it would be my fault. T’uh!

“No studies. No evidence. Just as hom and bluster. That’s 95% of climate sceptics.”

How many should read studies? Most aren’t scientists, and many aren’t into that joyful pursuit. I think 5% is okay - many of the rest are close to the debate and function as witnesses, referees even.

Aren’t the experts supposed to address the queries and contrary views of that 5% by engagement - rather than dismissal, or by complaining about those who have taken a view based on their feeling or experience or other knowledge (and who are closely watching)?
I think Iain Davis is in that witness category. He pointed to what some critics were saying that had not been addressed.

He also pointed out that the claimed ‘overwhelming consensus’ seemed to be the subject of heavy fiddling.
Consensus is not a creation of science; so, it can’t of itself be overwhelming.

Thanks for exchanging views - I think I’m going to leave it there unless, we have something more concrete to discuss than each other’s dubious claims :slightly_smiling_face:


1 Like

Heya ED

I agree that burning fossil fuels is separate to the carbon cycle. That’s the primary driver for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the thing that’s upsetting the balance we’ve been living with for 250,000 years.


It’s not your fault. But it is a choice. Google scholar has all the information you need to get started. You can choose to read up on the basic science of climate change at any time. It’s possibly the most transparent of all scientific endeavours in human history.

I would include someone like Michael McIntyre (in the early days before he went frothy at the mouth about Michael Mann) or Zhakarova or even Soong as being in the 5%. They have published papers that critique the mainstream position. In all cases their claims were taken seriously and found to be wrong. They were not dismissed.

Even non scientists like Lord Monckton were also taken seriously (in the beginning at least) and his theories were discussed by climate scientists.

Informed debates do happen. The data still only points in 1 direction though. The problem is that rather than accepting that they are wrong, each one if the people I mentioned above (and several others) double down on their wrongness and keep going saying the same (wrong) thing over and over. After a while, scientists who are actually working on uncovering what’s actually happening on planet earth just don’t bother with these people any more. It’s understandable.

So let’s do a mental exercise together for a moment. Hundreds to thousands of papers on climate change related subjects are published every year. For decades. That’s a giant body of work. 10s of thousands of studies maybe over the last 50 years. Maybe more.

Let’s say there is no consensus amongst climate scientists. Maybe it’s even a minority position. Let’s say half the scientists hold views contrary to the mainstream. That means that we should straightforwardly be able to find 1000s - 10000s of papers contradicting the mainstream position over many years consistently painting a convincing and different picture. Easily.

Where are those papers? Who are those authors?

Given the vested corporate interests rallied against climate scientists, these papers should be easily available. Where are they?

The consensus is real. The vast majority of scientists who are studying this subject know that the earth is warming and that our actions in industrial society are the primary cause.

Happy to keep chatting and happy to leave it there. I’ll read the rest of the Ian Davis pieces this eve.

Just one point

They’re in your bin… :slightly_smiling_face:
Or at least 8,000 were in the bin of Legates and Cook, as Iain Davis relates and links in his article, as they proclaimed agreement in the rest.

Also missing here is the recognition that the funding creates much of the dynamic.
There are hundreds of papers on ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘misinformation’ since 2020 and before.
And they are all crap - every last one. Because none want to address the fundamental question of what the papers are supposed to be about; whether about why people ‘hesitate’ to take vaccines, whether they have a point or whether the subject of the ‘misinformation’ is really false or not (it usually isn’t).

Since AGW took off and found favour, the papers you are asking about will mostly be rejected by the funding dynamic, in preprints or lurking around on websites hoping to see daylight somehow. Or they won’t even be written because the scientsts can’t get funding or employment.

But going by your yardstick, the scientific consensus is ‘overwhelming’.
That’s what purging does.


It’s been interesting to follow this thread, learning as I go along, while also - very slowly - inching my through the Jem Bendell book. It’s harsh to criticise when I’m not even 10% through but the way it is structured is flawed. He uses the first section of the book to introduce the topics he’ll be discussing later in the text. Not unusual, but it is far too detailed and introduces way too many neologisms which are not explained very well. It is rather a plod.

Earlier in this thread someone asked (I paraphrase) does JB present any original data? I don’t think he does on the little I have seen, he trusts the experts to do so reliably.

At this point I think that my position remains (along the same lines as Darren Allen) that bad stuff is happening and there is very likely worse to come in terms of systemic collapse. How much of this is a deliberate dismantling is moot.

Bendell prefers to speak of ‘society’ and as a sociologist by training that is his prerogative. But I think that corporations, nation states and supranational bodies are setting the agenda here, not ‘society’.

The agenda is a terrible threat to us all. Individual liberty, even the freedom to move from point A to point B, and to buy (hideously expensive) goods on the way back (or whatever) are going to be constrained. Piping up in anything more than the mildest way risks disenfranchisement, freezing of funds, cessation of liberty, or worse.

All the legal pieces are pretty much in place now. And the authorities know that they need only declare an emergency to plug any gaps in the totalitarian apparatus taking shape all around us.

At least some, no doubt, have good intentions that such measures will save society, or at least the reasonably well-funded and compliant portion of it…


Coming up on the inside…

I don’t have time to read the PDF. Too busy, and downtime has become a priority. I’m sure one of you guys do.

Back to climate… interesting fella that Maurice Strong.